Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Daisy Cooper

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I have been told to be brief.

I am in favour of our being assisted to die as painlessly as possible, and every palliative care nurse and doctor I have ever talked to has made it clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is possible. Of course, we can be anaesthetised, as we all are when we have operations. I hear the argument, but I believe that we need to improve palliative care.

What worries me about the Bill—this is my point—is that I do not believe that it will be just an assisted dying Bill; I think that in time, it will become an assisted suicide Bill. I have mentioned the ECHR. What is the logic of the Bill? We all know it is terrible if you have a terminal cancer prognosis, but what if you are clinically depressed? What if you are quadriplegic? What if you are sentenced to a lifetime of being unable to move your arms or legs? What if you know, as a member of our family in Canada does, that you will get more and more dementia, so you take the assisted dying route? The truth is that we cannot differentiate between these conditions that make life unbearable for many people. I make this prediction: if this Bill goes through—if the Parliament Act ensures that it does—I believe that in 10 years’ time we will be in similar situation to Canada, and very large numbers of people will be choosing assisted dying.

We hear a lot that this country is broken, and that the elite is ruining the country. I think that is rubbish. This country is not broken. The reason we are under pressure is that there are too many of us—too many old people; too many people with multiple health conditions. There is tremendous pressure on the NHS; we know that. We heard a lot from my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) about coercion. We have also heard that coercion is not necessarily external; it can be internal. I believe that if we move to a society in which assisted suicide is the norm, vast numbers of people will take it up. Is that really the sort of society that we want?

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No. I agree that we would have more prosperity and be a richer country, and would have more choice and freedom, but would it really be a happier country? What I stand for, and what I believe in passionately, is respect for all human life—the life of old people who are suffering so much from dementia that they cannot even recognise their own children, and the life of people who have appalling long-term conditions. I believe that there is a greater thing than choice or prosperity; it is love—love of life. All of us in every country in the last 100 years have said that whatever happens, we should respect life and not take it. Yes, this will be difficult for many people, and we have heard moving stories, but take the NHS; at the moment, when a person goes to hospital, they know that they will be dealt with compassionately by a doctor or nurse, and that the conversation will be all about relieving their symptoms and trying to save their life. Do they want the conversation to start with the fact that their life is unbearable?

I know that there is passion on both sides of this debate, and we treat each other with respect, but before we vote for this Bill at 2.30 pm, remember what sort of society we would be creating—not a society that loves life.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Daisy Cooper

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Lady is giving a very good speech. I hope, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, she will say just a tiny bit more about rural pubs. I think a lot of urban Members do not understand the context. Where I live here in Westminster, it takes me one minute to walk to my local—one minute. Where I live in the Lincolnshire Wolds, it takes me one hour to walk to the pub—one hour. Everybody who accesses pubs in rural England has to go there by car. We do not ride horses any more, and it is too dangerous to walk on the road or take a bicycle. The Government have to understand that the rural pub is in real danger from the alcohol limits and other measures.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am incredibly grateful to the right hon. Member for making that point. I am the MP for St Albans, which is a small city, but I am a Suffolk girl born and bred. I know how valuable rural pubs are. They provide all sorts of services: they look after older people and single people; they are a fantastic community hub; and they provide employment for young people—one of my first jobs, aside from apple picking, was working in a pub—so I understand the vital importance of pubs in every single village, town, parish and hamlet up and down the United Kingdom. I am grateful to him for making that point.

In closing, I hope that when the Government respond this evening they provide answers to some of these questions. What did Ministers know and when? If the VOA sent that sector information on valuations, when was it sent? When did it send the information on pubs, specifically? If the VOA did tell Ministers that rateable values had at least doubled for more than 5,000 pubs, how is it possible that Ministers did not know? Why have we still not had a statement from the Government on what they are trying to do? Will their announcement extend to the rest of the hospitality industry, or just to pubs? Will the Government now use the full powers that they gave themselves? I cannot cost this, because I have not been given the numbers despite repeated attempts to get them. Will the Government consider a VAT cut?

Finally, the only rumour we have heard about what the Government may be considering are the changes to licensing laws, so let me close with this point: if your pub is empty, you do not want to keep it open for longer, paying more money to keep the lights on, the radiators heated and the staff behind the bar. That is not an answer to this problem.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Debate between Edward Leigh and Daisy Cooper

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on an excellent maiden speech that highlighted the values of equality and fairness—principles that many of us can agree on—and on demonstrating his stamina by being the last Member to be called. With that level of stamina, I am sure that he will give the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a run for his money.

It is an honour to sum up for the Liberal Democrats. Once again, I extend a warm welcome to new Ministers and to our country’s first female Chancellor. I also congratulate new Members from all parties who gave their maiden speeches today. Their speeches did not disappoint; they were poignant, funny and bursting with passion. When I gave my maiden speech in 2019, I was very proud to say that St Albans has more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, and today’s maiden speeches have given us enough historical nuggets for a maiden speech pub quiz—maybe I will write it on the train journey home.

I am pleased that the topics of economy, welfare and public services have been brought together. Why? Well, during the general election, the Liberal Democrats put health and care front and centre of our campaign, and we did so for two reasons. First, it was the No. 1 issue that constituents raised with us on the doorstep. Every single person is impacted by the crisis in health and social care. Secondly, we know that health creation and wealth creation are two sides of the same coin. We cannot have a thriving economy if our population is sick.

We Liberal Democrats set out an ambitious agenda during the general election, and we are pleased about some of the pledges in the King’s Speech. We are pleased that there will be reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, which is incredibly long overdue, and a number of other public health measures—especially on the protection of children’s health. However, we in this House all know that it is equally important to tackle the social and commercial determinants of health, and tackling child poverty is just as important as tackling the aggressive marketing of vapes and energy drinks. That is why scrapping the two-child benefit limit is in our Liberal Democrat amendment.

It is also important that we focus on access to health and social care services. People must be able to access the care that they need when they need it. That is where the Liberal Democrats want to see more ambition. We need to fix our crumbling hospitals, we need mental health hubs in communities, we need to boost our GP numbers, we need to guarantee that people have a legal right to see their GP within seven days, and we need to put an end to dental deserts.

We all know someone who has had cancer and died, or someone who has had cancer and survived, but in every single year from 2015, the Conservative Government missed their cancer treatment target. We cannot allow that to continue. That is why we Liberal Democrats wanted there to be a legal right—through a statutory duty on Ministers—for this House and the public to hold Ministers to account on ensuring that people can see a GP and get their cancer treatment when they need it.

We Liberal Democrats will also be unapologetic and unrelenting in our focus on social care. We have campaigned for free personal care, and we will continue to do so. Free personal care is good for people’s independence and dignity, and for the NHS. It would also enable the many millions of unpaid carers, who currently pick up the pieces of a broken social care system, to up their hours, do more work, return to work and boost our economy. Health creation and wealth creation are two sides of the same coin.

We look forward to seeing the Government’s employment rights Bill with interest. We Liberal Democrats have campaigned for improved pay for care workers, including by proposing a higher minimum wage starting at £2 more, but that has to come with improved investment so that local government no longer has to rob Peter to pay Paul. We can no longer suppress the pay of experienced care workers to fund improved pay for new starters. We must stop ripping the heart out of a retention strategy just to tackle recruitment. We have to do both.

The King’s Speech was also an opportunity to go further on care. It was an opportunity to introduce paid carer’s leave, make care a protected characteristic, create a royal college of care workers, introduce measures to tackle to scandal of carer’s allowance overpayments, and put in place a framework for cross-party talks that would finally put social care on a firm financial footing for the future. I recognise that the King’s Speech is an opportunity for the Government to set out their priorities, but I hope very much that many of these ideas—particularly for fixing social care—may be announced in due course. As our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), has said, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be the voice of carers in this Parliament.

If we want to boost the economy, we have to recognise that there are now several stages to people’s lives and careers. There has to be lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling from cradle to grave, but we still have to make sure that every child has the best start in life. At the moment under the current system, many children—particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities—are put at a big disadvantage from the get-go, and a huge part of that is SEND funding. As one quick example, my area of Hertfordshire is one of the poorest funded education authorities for SEND. Under the Conservatives’ funding formula, it would take 15 years for children in Hertfordshire to catch up with those in neighbouring Buckinghamshire, itself one of the poorest funded education authorities. That is an entire generation of lost young children and lost education because of a Government spreadsheet formula. It is just another unforgivable legacy of the Conservative Government, and I implore the Labour Government to look at this issue with fresh eyes and real urgency.

Another engine of our economy is small businesses and high streets. Many speakers this afternoon, including many people giving their maiden speech, have talked about the high streets and local businesses that are the glue that hold our communities together. I would like to push the Government to go further, particularly on reforming business rates. Some people may remember that in the aftermath of the mini-Budget, the ex-Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), had spent the summer campaigning for a complete overhaul of the business rates system. On his first day in the job, I challenged him on whether he would in fact review that system. He gave me a wry smile from across the Chamber and said that he regretted campaigning so hard for it from the Back Benches. That review was left in the “too hard” basket; it is part of a long list of challenges facing the Labour Government, unfortunately with a similar refrain, but I implore Labour Ministers not to do the same. Sitting in their in-tray will be the results of the high streets taskforce, which I am sure will confirm what we already know: that the business rates system is broken, crippling high streets—particularly heritage pubs—while Amazon warehouses are being given a tax break. That system is not the foundation of a fair economy.

To conclude, there are measures in the King’s Speech that we welcome, but we want to see far greater ambition for our high streets, our children and our public services, particularly health and social care. We believe that our amendment to the Address goes some way towards addressing those things, and we urge Members to support it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.